So you aren't answering the question? You said there are right and wrong choices re: sexuality. Which one of those 2 is "right?"

"But those people aren't asking for changes in the law that allow them to get married differently. For example, if they asked for changes in the law to allow for special "S&M weddings" where the entire wedding party beats up anyone that attends their wedding and no one can be prosecuted, that wouldn't be allowed because it's ridiculous."

Are you ******* serious? If you're at a wedding with homosexuals, is there a chance you're going to get raped by a man while you're there? The **** are you talking about?

So you aren't answering the question? You said there are right and wrong choices re: sexuality. Which one of those 2 is "right?"

The point isn't about "right" or "wrong" but about the fact that IT IS A CHOICE.

Are you ******* serious? If you're at a wedding with homosexuals, is there a chance you're going to get raped by a man while you're there? The **** are you talking about?

Way to miss the point, again. You're either doing that deliberately to avoid the logic that destroys your argument, or you're far less intelligent than I gave you credit for.

The point is that homosexuals are asking the law to change to allow them to marry differently, while those who are S&M are not.

Is that like...

"All people ARE equal. I don't see any way marriage is different. Everyone can marry anyone of the same race, no matter what race they are to begin with."

No, because you don't choose your race (as opposed to your sexuality, which is entirely a matter of choice). You keep missing that.

Then again, I'd have no problem with it if people only married those of the same race. Before you say I'm racist (because I'm not), I'm only saying I'd have no problem with that, not that it is necessarily the best thing.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2013 1:31:00 PM (view original):Probably not. But I feel like someone's tried before. If he fought for it, on basis of equality, maybe. I know that a transgender woman is trying.

It defeats the purpose of the LPGA. If men were allowed to play, it would essentially become a "mens minor league" golf association.

Hehe.

"SSM defeats the purpose of marriage. If men were allowed to marry one another, it would essentially become an entirely different union of two people.."

So you aren't answering the question? You said there are right and wrong choices re: sexuality. Which one of those 2 is "right?"

The point isn't about "right" or "wrong" but about the fact that IT IS A CHOICE.

Are you ******* serious? If you're at a wedding with homosexuals, is there a chance you're going to get raped by a man while you're there? The **** are you talking about?

Way to miss the point, again. You're either doing that deliberately to avoid the logic that destroys your argument, or you're far less intelligent than I gave you credit for.

The point is that homosexuals are asking the law to change to allow them to marry differently, while those who are S&M are not.

Is that like...

"All people ARE equal. I don't see any way marriage is different. Everyone can marry anyone of the same race, no matter what race they are to begin with."

No, because you don't choose your race (as opposed to your sexuality, which is entirely a matter of choice). You keep missing that.

Then again, I'd have no problem with it if people only married those of the same race. Before you say I'm racist (because I'm not), I'm only saying I'd have no problem with that, not that it is necessarily the best thing.

So, you aren't answering it. OK. Then you should stop mentioning that there are right and wrong choices regarding sexuality when making your argument.

What do you mean "marry differently?" They want to get married. Not "married differently."

Gays ARE NOT allowed to get married, nationally. Someone mentioned part of that is society thinks it's abnormal.
S&M lovers ARE allowed to get married. Even though it's abnormal.

You cannot choose your sexual preference, just like you cannot choose your race.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2013 1:31:00 PM (view original):Probably not. But I feel like someone's tried before. If he fought for it, on basis of equality, maybe. I know that a transgender woman is trying.

It defeats the purpose of the LPGA. If men were allowed to play, it would essentially become a "mens minor league" golf association.

Hehe.

"SSM defeats the purpose of marriage. If men were allowed to marry one another, it would essentially become an entirely different union of two people.."

Women want to play professional golf. So we let them. If you have a problem with that, that's a different argument.

There was a PGA Tour, where the best goflers play golf. At some point, we decided that we should allow women to play pro sports too. None of them have the athletic gifts that the best men golfers have, so we let women play in a women's league. If you allow men to play in the women's league, it defeats the purpose.

So, you aren't answering it. OK. Then you should stop mentioning that there are right and wrong choices regarding sexuality when making your argument.

I didn't say there were right and wrong choices. I simply said there were choices.

What do you mean "marry differently?" They want to get married. Not "married differently."

Do you not understand what the word differently means?

If they wanted to get married, they already can, and there would be no debate.

The fact is they want to get married differently, specifically to someone of the same gender.

Gays ARE NOT allowed to get married, nationally. Someone mentioned part of that is society thinks it's abnormal.
S&M lovers ARE allowed to get married. Even though it's abnormal.

S&M lovers aren't asking for a change in the law to allow them to marry in a different manner. Try to understand that.

You cannot choose your sexual preference, just like you cannot choose your race.

Many pages ago in this thread I clearly and logically explained how sexual preference IS a choice. Or do you not choose who you are involved with romantically and/or sexually? Is it already pre-determined, like fate? Is that what you think?

There was a PGA Tour, where the best goflers play golf. At some point, we decided that we should allow women to play pro sports too. None of them have the athletic gifts that the best men golfers have, so we let women play in a women's league. If you allow men to play in the women's league, it defeats the purpose.

I'm not sure what sexual orientation has to do with playing golf.

Can't one argue that allowing men to marry one another defeats the purpose of marriage?

There was a PGA Tour, where the best goflers play golf. At some point, we decided that we should allow women to play pro sports too. None of them have the athletic gifts that the best men golfers have, so we let women play in a women's league. If you allow men to play in the women's league, it defeats the purpose.

I'm not sure what sexual orientation has to do with playing golf.

Holy ****.

So it's OK in your mind to have separate professional golf leagues for men and women, but it's not OK in your mind to have separate institutions for unions of heterosexual and gay couples?

That's not a very consistent implementation of "equality", is it? Seems kind of arbitrary to me.

“I didn't say there were right and wrong choices. I simply said there were choices.”

"Yet this has nothing to do with choosing a romantic or sexual partner. There are choices which aren't smart in these cases, too, but you can choose anyone you'd like provided they agree to choose you as well.”

Should I fix the wording in my question?Which choice was “smart?”

“Do you not understand what the word differently means?”

I understand it.Gay couples don’t want to be married in any different way than heterosexual couples are married.I think you thinking it’s “different” is part of the roadblock in our lines of thinking, and gets to the heart of our argument.I don’t see it as different.It’s 2 people getting married.

“Many pages ago in this thread I clearly and logically explained how sexual preference IS a choice. Or do you not choose who you are involved with romantically and/or sexually? Is it already pre-determined, like fate? Is that what you think?”

What do you prefer?Hot dogs or hamburgers?Do you have to think about it, and “make a choice” on what you preferred?Or do you just like one better than the other, based on taste? Yes, I believe it is pre-determined which sex you are most attracted to.

There was a PGA Tour, where the best goflers play golf. At some point, we decided that we should allow women to play pro sports too. None of them have the athletic gifts that the best men golfers have, so we let women play in a women's league. If you allow men to play in the women's league, it defeats the purpose.

I'm not sure what sexual orientation has to do with playing golf.

Holy ****.

So it's OK in your mind to have separate professional golf leagues for men and women, but it's not OK in your mind to have separate institutions for unions of heterosexual and gay couples?

That's not a very consistent implementation of "equality", is it? Seems kind of arbitrary to me.